Frey on Luke at Murvaux

[Ira_Silverman]

Stephen:

I’m sorry you’re crushed, but please do not put words in my mouth.

I merely re-iterated what is stated on the first affidavit, which MAY be in conflict with the statement of the Graves Commission. The second item (14 sheets) was merely a wish list, which we both know can never happen.

To uneqivocally deny even the slightest possible effect of a language barrier is foolhardy; the effect of an authority figure should at least be considered before dismissing it outright. And is memory 44 years and another World War after the fact absolutely credible? While the ship may be sailing, more than a few holes need to be plugged before it’s seaworthy.

This is getting to sound like The Bible: either you believe it happened this way or you don’t. Period.

BTW, how long was a moment? One second? Two? Three? The time between drawing a revolver and falling dead (a moment after) is critical to your argument that he fired in the first place.

Also – read John Kosek’s article, and maybe even “A BONFIRE IN THE SKY.” It’s clear that noone will change your opinion, but these should give you some additional thoughts to mull over.

VBR,

Ira

[Vin]

“Someone told Barrett about “a French visitor to the Champlin Fighter Museum some years ago who told Mr. Champlin that his grandfather heard…”

“In Mutley's screenplay research is a reference to a document which indicates that one or more Germans were wounded…”

You could not get much that is less credible

In the context of the analytical quality of the posts of Lee, Billy and Ira in this thread, it is disappointing to see a very knowledgeable and professional writer put this sort of material up for serious consideration.


Vin

[stephen]

>>>>To uneqivocally deny even the slightest possible effect of a language barrier is foolhardy; the effect of an authority figure should at least be considered before dismissing it outright.

American officials pressure the French to concoct some wild story? To what end? They didn't even know Luke, and America doesn't need heroes for wars its already won. There's no motivation for the Americans to generate a false story, and even less for the French to offer one.

The language barrier is total speculation. There is nothing in the second affidavit to suggest that it caused any problem with the first affidavit. They simply said that the Americans spoke to them in the best French they could speak. That may indicate the Americans were not fluent, but it does not observe or even indicate a communication problem. And Frey's French, by his own admission, was poor. So now we throw out both testimonies entirely and we can't even prove that Luke ever set foot in Murvaux.

>>>>This is getting to sound like The Bible: either you believe it happened this way or you don’t. Period.

"We did see them"
"We are definately certain"
"Beyond any doubt"
"According to what we could see"
"Give the above statement of our own free will"
"Swear it is true"

I'm sorry, Ira, but that's pretty black and white. This is not ambiguity or confusion. This is not the wild, crazy memory of a bunch of old senile men with drool dripping off their chins. This is the sworn testimony of people who make specific, explicit claims, and do so in full recognition of and elaboration on a specific previous document. Please tell me where you see ambiguity in their testimonies. I haven't found it yet.

>>>>>BTW, how long was a moment? One second? Two? Three? The time between drawing a revolver and falling dead (a moment after) is critical to your argument that he fired in the first place.

The winner of a recent revolver shooting contest in "Handgun" magazine put 6 rounds on target, reloaded, and put 6 more rounds on target in precisely 2.3 seconds. Luke may not have been as good as this championship shooter, but by all accounts he was an expert marksman. He only needed enough time for one shot to make the witness testimonies possible - so we need him to live for perhaps half a second after drawing his weapon. Even you would grant half a second as a possibility, wouldn't you?

>>>>Also – read John Kosek’s article, and maybe even “A BONFIRE IN THE SKY.”

Okay. I'll consider anything he says. Where do I find it?

>>>>It’s clear that noone will change your opinion

How on earth can anyone call this my opinion? Which part of "drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers" and "draw his revolver to defend himself" do you think I made up? I'm simply quoting people who claim to have seen this and asking for solid evidence to refute their words... and you accuse me of being unwilling to change "my" opinion? Surely, Ira, even those we may disagree, you would retract that statement.

[stephen]

Barrett, I definately want to make some rounds in November and ask about any lingering memories of the relatives of current residents. But the latest revisionist fads have become so popular that I have little hope of changing the current trend.

Put it this way... no matter how clear or numerous the memories of current residents may be, or even if we find the earwitness' grandson himself... who would believe him? If people refuse to accept the sworn words of over a dozen people who saw it with their own eyes, why would they accept any testimonies 80 years later? So long as revisionism is latest rage, I'm afraid its a lost cause. Luke didn't do it, and it doesn't matter how many people saw or heard him.

I do not intend to try to speak for others, but it appears to me that the various contributors to this thread are saying that several explanations are plausible, but that none can definitively be considered the absolute truth by individuals studying the issue 82 years after it occured.

Regardless of what transpired after FL landed his SPAD, his CMoH and his status of American hero had already been earned. Just a thought: until it can be proven otherwise, the legend associated with Luke's shootout should be accepted as described. It is afterall described in the original description of the event, the only such description with a temporal relationship to the event itself.

[Vin]

Mark,

If you apply the temporal relationship to the event test, then you are probably left with the 1919 summary. By itself that document does not say there was a shootout. To get that far, you have to add “why else would he have…” etc. If you have been reading the posts by Ira, Lee and Billy you will be aware of the flaws and inaccuracies in it.

Until it can be proven otherwise is the wrong way about. The onus of proof is on the person making the assertion. Anyone who claims that the legend is true must prove it, not the other way round. By analogy, if I was to write you a letter saying “Last night, I saw fairies at the bottom of my garden” you would have a contemporaneous account in writing. Would you accept that as true until someone could come along and prove that there are no fairies at the bottom the Ryan garden ?

All of Billy, Ira and Lee express great admiration for Luke. There is no disrespect in investigating the background to events, applying logic and clear thinking and weighting the results.


Vin

[stephen]

>>>>>until it can be proven otherwise, the legend associated with Luke's shootout should be accepted as described. It is afterall described in the original description of the event, the only such description with a temporal relationship to the event itself.

Mark, that is the only rational way to view the available evidence.

a) we can roughly place the witnesses at the scene of the events at the appropriate time,

B) the eyewitness accounts generally agree,

c) and we cannot establish a motive for lying.

We then must accept the available accounts and combine them to form the best overall picture of the events possible until evidence to the contrary is produced. By even the lowest standard of logic, the words of those who were there must stand until they are refuted by solid evidence.

"he got out of his machine, undoubtedly to quench his thirst at a nearby stream... the wounded pilot had crawled on his hands and knees... he had gone some 50 meters, when... as the German soldiers came down the slope and approached the creek while following the trail of blood... the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded... he still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself... (he) drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers... and a moment after fell dead."

If someone on the other side of the world 82 years too late wants to dispute what an eyewitness claimed to observe on the evening of September 29th, 1918 in a French farm field, expect you to have something pretty darn convincing. And so far not a single, solitary shred of solid evidence has been forthcoming.

Royal Frey, apparently "a revisionist" of a early sort- wrote of his visit to Murvaux in'62 (not- by the way- 82 years after the event). To reiterate Frey's finding:
"Now when you read that Luke fired
at German troops and they returned
the fire killing him, remember that
it is not true."

In Frey's several communications with Lt. Engels (the first German officer to reach Luke's side) Fry apparently accepted that he could make this statement without reservation. He was a fighter pilot, a responsible historian and later the Curator of the Air Force Museum. He was, by everyone's standards, the highest type of "officer and gentleman". To dismiss such a qualified commentary from such a distinguished individual as "revisionist" is unworthy of anyone purporting to be seeking the assertable truth of the Luke incident. That aside- I still am baffled as to how- in the late evening- around 1900 hours- from a village 700-1200 yards from the young officer dying- while secluded in the trees- some witnesses (all of them apparently!) could ascertain the small motion of a weapon being brought to hand. I'm signing off on this issue as I've seen absolutely nothing of merit from those who would contradict Col. Frey. He,in his being privy to the testimony of Engels, speaks with authority. Moreover, without the appearance here of any semblance of a argument or theory countering those improbabilities implicit in the perceptual problems of darkness and the distance faced by the "witnesses", it is pointless to re-emphasise that interesting topic-to any of those who would denigrate honest verities and honest Colonels. I will attend to other matters of interest. Ira, Vin- thanks for the competence implicit in your input! See you on another thread. Good luck to all- Lee

[Ira_Silverman]

Stephen:

I see no point in pursuing this discussion further – your logic has done more to advance my case than anything I could possibly add.

However, it would do you well to look at the John Kosek article I referenced, which as I mentioned in my thread of 17 September, was published in the Winter 1998 issue of “Over the Front,” the Journal of the League of World War One Aviation Historians. Membership in the League, as well as in Cross & Cockade International and World War One Aeroplanes would avail you of a tremendous network of researchers, historians, writers and friends.

Kosek’s novel about FL, A BONFIRE IN THE SKY, is available from Amazon.com at $14.95.

Also as stated in that same thread, Kosek is married to a niece of FL, and has been a Luke family member for 45 years.

Off to challenge other windmills,

VBR,

Ira

[stephen]

>>>>>>To dismiss such a qualified commentary from such a distinguished individual as "revisionist"

No one is dismissing Frey or his work. Actually, I have supported the affidavit that Frey procured from the witnesses entirely. You are the one dismissing it.

Please produce the entire written testimony of Engels (I presume you are referring to Ltn B. Mangels of the Balloonzug at Milly). Until then, THE ONLY SOLID EVIDENCE EVER PRODUCED BY ROYAL FREY SUPPORTS THE THEORY THAT LUKE FIRED HIS WEAPON.

The trees you refer to are not along the Milly creek at all, but along a modern fence row about 50-75 yards south of it. They are mostly young trees which were not even there in 1918, and yes, I've stood beside them and looked. There are no trees along Milly creek within 200 yards of the landing site. So use knee to waist high weeds in your arguement, not trees. There weren't any. And remember that Luke was seen to rise to his feet prior to firing.

1900 hrs (Fre) is the latest possible time to place Frank Luke's landing and is likely more than 40 minutes off. Luke's balloon confirmations were at 1705, 1706 and 1712 hrs... which means his SPAD probably didn't even have enough fuel to be aloft at 1900 hrs.

And there are nearly 50 minutes of good visibility remaining AFTER 1900 hrs, and another 19 minutes of lousy light beyond that. And the Cote St. Germain lays to the north, not the west. The valley extends westward all the way to Milly and Dun, and late sunlight is not blocked.

The theory that the witnesses could not see what they claim to have seen remains unsupportable and Frey's own affidavit supports the position that Luke fired... so please give me something other than "Frey was a nice guy." You are leaving the conversation without a shred of solid evidence to support your position.